Report Of The Parties To The Montreal Protocol On The Work Of Their First Meeting


6 May 1989



Helsinki, 2-5 May 1989



1. The First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was held in Helsinki at the kind invitation of the Government of Finland from 2 to 5 May 1989 in accordance with article 11 of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.


A. Opening of the meeting

2. After a vocal performance by the Helsinki Children's Choir, Dr. M.K. Tolba, the Executive Director of UNEP opened the meeting. In his opening statement the Executive Director thanked His Excellency the President of the Republic of Finland and through him the Government of Finland for hosting the meeting. The Executive Director noted that the Montreal Protocol was agreed upon by 62 countries and the European Economic Community, and ratified by 36 countries and the EC. Dr. Tolba reviewed the scientific evidence concerning ozone layer depletion that has emerged since the Protocol was signed in September 1987, and stressed that the recent evidence indicates the rate of ozone layer depletion is greater than previously thought. The Executive Director recommended the total elimination of ozone depleting substances by the end of the century; the clarification of provisions to address the special needs of developing countries, including financial and technical assistance; and the articulation of a clear signal to industry concerning amended regulations. The Executive Director stressed the link between ozone depletion and greenhouse gases and climate change, and concluded that the public expects clear action to protect their future.

3. His Excellency Dr. M. Koivisto, President of the Republic of Finland, welcomed the participants of the meeting to Helsinki. The President noted that the scientific community is convinced that ozone layer loss is more serious than earlier research indicated, and concluded that production and consumption of ozone depleting substances should be stopped as soon as possible. His Excellency Dr. Koivisto also noted that the Finnish Government will phase out CFCs by 1998, and stressed the link between ozone depleting substances and other greenhouse gases which were causing climate change and global warming. The President emphasized the serious ecological, economic, political and social consequences of climate change, and called for increased energy conservation, greater energy efficiency and a shift to environmentally-friendly energy sources to lessen the impact on climate change. The President endorsed a world-wide strategy of sustained growth that respected and assisted the justified growth objectives of developing countries, and called for increased investments in new technologies, and more technology transfer assistance from developed to developing countries. His Excellency Dr. Koivisto announced an increase by Finland of more than a half of its annual contribution to the United Nations Environment Fund, and concluded by wishing full success to the Meeting of the Parties.

4. The meeting was attended by delegations from 31 countries and the EEC, Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Belgium, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United States of America.

Representatives from 51 countries attended as observers:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Yemen, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Monaco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

21 organizations were represented:

United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), Nordic Council, European Federation of the Chemical Industry (CEFIC), Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Federation of European Aerosol Associations (FEA), Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), International Organization of Consumers' Union (IOCU), Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association (MVMA), World Wildlife Fund International (WWF).

B. Adoption of the agenda and programme of work

5. The meeting adopted the following agenda:

1. Opening of the meeting:

(a) Statement by the representative of the Government of Finland;

(b) Statement by the Executive Director of UNEP.

2. Adoption of the agenda.

3. Organizational matters:

(a) Adoption of the rules of procedure;

(b) Election of the President, three Vice-Presidents and the Rapporteur.

4. Report of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention.

5. The London Conference on Saving the Ozone Layer.

6. Preparations for the review of control measures of ozone depleting substances:

(a) Latest status of the science of the ozone layer;

(b) Policy responses by delegations;

(c) Convening of established panels, their terms of reference, and timetable for the preparation of reports on:

(i) Scientific assessment;

(ii) Assessment of environmental effects;

(iii) Technical assessment;

(iv) Economic assessment.

(d) Establishment of a working group to:

(i) Prepare a synthesis report on basis of the panel reports;

(ii) Consider required amendments to the Protocol;

(iii) Develop the workplan (item 7).

7. Proposed workplans for research, development, public awareness and exchange of information and technical assistance.

8. Adoption of the financial rules:

(a) Budget;

(b) Assessment of contributions by Parties;

(c) Mechanism for administering financial resources.

9. Consideration of the subject of non-compliance with Protocol provisions.

10. Review of the annex to the Protocol:

(a) Determination of ozone depleting potential for halon 2402;

(b) Review of latest information on ozone depleting capacities of CFCs and halons.

11. Issues relating to data of CFCs and halons:

(a) Reporting of the data for 1986 and for 1989 and onwards;

(b) Confidentiality of data.

12. Consideration and agreement on understanding of concrete meanings of following terms or phrases:

(a) "Controlled substances in bulk" (article 1, paragraph 4);

(b) "Controlled substances produced" (article 1, paragraph 5);

(c) "Imports of controlled substances" and "exports of controlled substances" (article 1, paragraph 6);

(d) "Basic domestic needs" (articles 2 and 5);

(e) "Industrial rationalization" (article 1, paragraph 8 and article 2, paragraphs 1 to 5);

(f) article 2, paragraph 6;

(g) "Developing country" (article 5).

13. Other matters.

14. Adoption of the report.

15. Closure of the meeting.

C. Adoption of Rules of Procedure

6. The Executive Director of UNEP presented the draft rules of procedure revised in accordance with the Rules of Procedure to the Vienna Convention adopted by the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Helsinki, 26-28 April 1989) (UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/3/Rev.1). These Rules of Procedure were adopted with an amendment made by the Parties as reflected in Annex I of this report.

7. While adopting the rules of procedure it was emphasized that they would apply mutatis mutandis to meetings of any subsidiary body as reflected in rule 56 of the adopted rules of procedure.

8. It was further agreed that the adopted change of Art. 6 of the Rules of Procedure should be proposed as an amendment of the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer at the next ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention in 1991.

D. Election of Officers

9. The meeting elected the following officers:

Mr. Kaj Bärlund, Minister of the Environment, Finland

Mr. Sergio Reyes-Lujan, Vice-Minister of Ecology, Mexico
Mr. Philip Woollaston, Minister of Conservation, New Zealand
Prof. Vladimir Zaharov, Deputy Chairman of the USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology

H.E. Keziah Kinyanjui, Permanent Representative of Kenya to UNEP

10. The meeting decided that the President, the three Vice-Presidents and the rapporteur constitute the Bureau of the meeting which should meet at least once between meetings of the Parties to review the work of any working groups established by the Parties during their meetings, to consider other topics and the agenda of the next meeting of the Parties and to review the documents prepared by the Secretariat to facilitate the work of the meeting.


E. The London Conference on Saving the Ozone Layer

11. The Rt. Honourable N. Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment for the United Kingdom, reported on the "Saving the Ozone Layer" Conference, for which he served as Chairman. The Secretary of State said that the Conference, attended by 123 countries - 80 of which were represented at the ministerial or equivalent level - displayed remarkable consensus. The Secretary of State noted the general acceptance in London that the ultimate objective had to be the elimination of the production and consumption of CFCs and halons. He underlined the stress placed by many speakers at the Conference on the need for global action and pointed to the link between ozone layer depletion and global warming, and the special threat of climate change to low-lying countries. The Secretary of State reported on agreement during the Conference that industry should increase efforts to find and promote solutions to ozone depletion and stressed the importance of an informed citizenry. The Conference had noted that current actions by many countries exceeded the provisions of the Protocol and many ideas were put forward for helping developing countries to move to a CFC-free world without impending their economic growth. The Conference message had stressed the importance of examining urgently ways of assisting developing countries in all appropriate international contexts. The message had concluded that the release of ozone depleting substances was inconsistent with the goal of sustainable development.

F. Preparations for the review of control measures of ozone depleting substances:

(a) Latest status of the science of the ozone layer

12. Dr. Robert Watson of the United States of America outlined the current understanding of the state of the ozone layer and the cause of its depletion.

13. Prior to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, the scientific community had made theoretic predictions of ozone loss due to emissions of CFCs and halons, but at that time, had observed no ozone layer depletion except over Antarctica, where the springtime ozone hole had been discovered by the British Antarctic Survey. The cause for the appearance of the ozone hole had not been established during the Montreal Protocol negotiations.

14. Since the signing of the Montreal Protocol, it has been established that chlorofluorocarbons and halons are a primary factor in the cause of Antarctic ozone loss. The necessary conditions for the ozone hole are both meteorological and chemical. The mechanism responsible is thought to be a persistent vortex isolating Antarctic air from the global atmospheric circulation; its becoming extremely cold inducing the formation of Polar stratospheric clouds; the transition on these clouds of inactive chlorine into active chlorine which in the presence of springtime sunlight brings about the chemical decomposition of ozone.

15. There is significant year to year variability in the magnitude of the springtime Antarctic ozone loss resulting from a natural variability in meteorological conditions and stratospheric temperatures. For instance, in 1988 ozone losses were less than in the previous cooler year. There are still many uncertainties to be solved and it is currently not possible to state if the ozone hole will, in the future, deepen beyond its present 50 per cent loss of ozone, extend from Antarctica into other regions of the Southern hemisphere, or last beyond springtime into summer.

16. A reanalysis of observational ground-based ozone data has revealed winter ozone losses of between 4 and 7 per cent of normal levels since 1969, between latitudes 30oN - 60oN and which are not attributable to known natural causes. Observations in tropical regions and in the Southern hemisphere were neither sufficiently reliable nor extensive enough to establish trends.

17. An international programme to examine the Arctic ozone layer was undertaken in 1988. No ozone hole comparable to that occurring in Antarctica was observed. However, the Arctic stratosphere was observed to be perturbed with significant amounts of active chlorine being present (the abundance of the ozone depleting chemical, i.e. the chlorine monoxide radical, was comparable to that observed in the Antarctic springtime). The scientists conducting the campaign concluded from this that there was potential for ozone loss in future years in the region. The fact that the vortex usually breaks down in late winter prior to the onset of significant sunlight has probably prevented an ozone hole from developing so far.

18. Dr. Watson said that the majority of the approximately 3 parts per billion of chlorine in the atmosphere comes from man-made sources. Even with full global implementation of the regulatory measures of the Montreal Protocol, calculations indicate that atmospheric chlorine concentrations would increase to more than 6 parts per billion during the next few decades. Under these conditions the Antarctic ozone hole could never fill up. In order to reduce the atmospheric levels of chlorine below those of today it would be necessary to phase out all the substances controlled under the Protocol, together with strict limitations on carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. Chlorine concentrations must be reduced if the ozone hole is to fill. Even with a complete phase-out of CFCs and other significant ozone depleting chemicals, it would still be decades to centuries before chlorine amounts dropped to pre-Antarctic ozone hole (early 1970s) levels because of the long atmospheric residence times of these ozone destroying substances.

19. Control of CFCs can also be considered as a first step in dealing with the related problem of global warming. CFCs and halons are greenhouse gases with high greenhouse warming potentials compared with carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Most identified potential substitutes for the controlled substances have low or no ozone depleting potentials (HCFCs and HFCs, respectively), but all have some greenhouse warming potential which should be taken into account when their suitability as substitutes is being considered.

20. The representative of the World Meteorological Organization confirmed the statement made by Dr. Watson and urged the improvement of the global observational capability and the need to examine carefully the role played by all atmospheric trace gases on ozone concentrations.

21. An expert from the USSR emphasized the need to examine the influence of methyl chloroform, not at present included in the list of substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol, on the ozone layer. He referred to the results of model estimates of a possible future destruction of the ozone layer if the production and consumption of methyl chloroform continued to increase. It was proposed that the panel established in accordance with the Montreal Protocol should consider the scientific data on methyl chloroform and draw up recommendations on possible measures to control this substance. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appealed to all developed countries to reduce their production of ozone depleting methyl chloroform by 50 per cent by 1994 and to eliminate it completely by 1998. The expert proposed that methyl chloroform should be included in the list of substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol, that this proposal should be considered at the second meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

(b) policy responses by delegations

22. 41 countries and 4 organizations (one representing 93 non-governmental organizations) made statements.

23. Most delegations urged that the states not yet Parties to the Montreal Protocol should be encouraged to accede to the Protocol and stated that all countries that produce or consume CFCs must join the Protocol in order for it to have the intended effect.

24. All delegations called for immediate and strengthened action towards saving the ozone layer, and most delegations indicated their support of at least an 85 % reduction in the use and production of CFCs. Several of these delegations expressed the view that a total phase-out of CFCs at the latest before the end of the century would be necessary.

25. All delegations noted the need for assistance to developing countries especially the need for mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of technology from developed countries to the developing countries.

26. One delegation outlined a proposal whereby its Government would set aside 0.1 per cent of its Gross National Income or 600 million Norwegian Kronas a year towards an international climate fund provided other industrialized countries did likewise. The general idea of establishing a fund to facilitate assistance to developing countries was supported by several delegations. In this context some delegations made reference to the Declaration of The Hague adopted on 11 March 1989 in so far as it is relevant to this subject. A number of delegations noted that both bilateral and multilateral mechanisms may be the most efficient means of funding assistance. A working group was convened to further discuss the matter.

27. One delegation stated that it is not simply a question of funding although ways and means of financial aid have to be sought.

28. One delegation suggested training of personnel under UNEP co-ordination for the developing countries in the new technologies for the manufacture and use of substitute chemicals. This was supported by some other delegations. One observer organization on behalf of 93 NGO's recommended the performance of specific feasibility studies on the needs of sample developing countries within the next 6 months in co-operation with aid agencies and multilateral banks.

29. Several delegations emphasized the link between ozone depletion and global climate change.

30. One delegation stated that a balanced course of action must be struck between providing incentives and enforcing appropriate control measures in order to achieve more stringent targets to reduce CFCs and halons and another delegation pointed out that consistent and clearly defined national and international policies were needed for the industries to define their strategies.

31. Some delegations pointed out the importance of including other substances especially methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride under the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. One observer organization called for a total phase out of these substances at the latest by 1995 and to include appropriate control measures for HCFCs. One delegation suggested that all the known ozone depleting substances should be included.

32. One delegation stated that use of certain substitute chemicals such as CFC 22 should continue for the time being but should not be increased, rather there should be control of their production and consumption, and use of them should be made only when no alternative products harmless to the environment were available.

33. A number of delegations emphasized the importance of research in the following area: development of substitute chemicals, alternative technologies and monitoring. One delegate mentioned that the effects of greenhouse gases and the atmospheric lifetime of ozone depleting substances should be assessed more closely and several others expressed concern about the possible environmental and health effects of the substitute chemicals.

34. One delegation proposed the establishment of a centre for the Latin American region to develop human resources, exchange of information, provide recommendations and funds to facilitate substitution to alternative chemicals and new technology.

35. One delegate highlighted the provision in the Protocol to discourage export of technology for production of CFCs from Parties to other countries and encourage exchange of information on best available technologies for the production of substitute chemicals. Some delegates supported the proposal by the delegations of the developing countries and a number of other delegations for the establishment of a mechanism for the transfer, free of charge, of technology for the production of alternative substances.

36. One delegation made a proposal that a minimum contribution of 1000 US$ should be made by all countries and a premium be set on each kilogramme produced of CFCs equal to 1 cent, which could support the Trust Fund, while another delegation expressed its decision to make available about 8.6 million FIM to facilitate activities of the developing countries under the Montreal Protocol.

37. The Executive Director of UNEP explained to the meeting of anticipatory action by UNEP in establishing the required review panels during UNEP's meeting on

the ozone layer convened in the Hague in October 1988. This had been done to facilitate the work of the Parties at their first session and would ensure that the information necessary to the assessment of the control measures of the Montreal Protocol would be available at the earliest possible time.

38. The Executive Director introduced the proposed terms of reference of the Assessments Panels, their composition and the timetable for their work (detailed in Annexes 2, 3 and 4 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer).

39. He stated that the Panels would report their findings by July/August 1989. It was planned that the reports would be discussed by the Chairmen meeting together in early July and that a high level group of advisors to the Executive Director would then review the reports before they are finalized and transmitted to a working group of the Parties for consolidation into a single report.

40. The meeting decided to endorse the establishment of four assessment panels, their composition and their terms of reference.

41. The meeting further agreed that where possible, more experts, particularly from developing countries, would be identified and invited to participate in the work of the Panels. The economic panel was identified as being specially in need of such additional support.

42. At the time of the adoption of the decision on establishment of the four assessment panels a number of developing countries indicated their keen interest in participating in the process, in particular on the economic assessment. They were informed that the next meeting of this panel will take place in Tokyo 29-30 May, 1989. They were also requested to provide the Secretariat and/or the EEC (convener of the Panel) with the names and contact addresses of the participants.

43. The USSR delegation proposed the inclusion of a number of additional experts from the USSR. Three additional experts in the Panel for Scientic Assessment, two experts in the Panel for Technical Assessment and one expert in the Panel for Economic Assessment were proposed.

44. An open-ended Working Group was established:

(a) To prepare a synthesis report on the basis of the panel report;

(b) To consider required amendments to the Protocol;

(c) To develop work plans required by articles 9 and 10 of the Montreal Protocol;

(d) To develop modalities for financial mechanisms required by decision 13.

45. A representative of the United States of America, Ms Eileen Claussen, outlined some of the issues related to strengthening the Montreal Protocol.

46. Using projected atmospheric chlorine levels as surrogates of the state of the ozone layer, different strategies aimed at reducing chlorine levels were compared.

47. For example, the effect of a CFC phase-out was compared with chlorine levels calculated to occur under conditions of global compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Model analyses demonstrated that even with a complete CFC phase-out, chlorine levels would continue to rise but at a slower rate than that expected with the Montreal Protocol in place.

48. The roles played by carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform were examined. This included the consequences for the atmosphere of freezing, cutting back, or phasing out production of these chemicals.

49. The extent to which fluorocarbon demand could be met by hydrofluorocarbons and partially halogenated CFCs or reduced by technological options such as chemical recycling and recovery was also examined. It was calculated that the average Ozone Depleting Potentials of HCFCs would also affect chlorine levels (using chemicals with a lower ODP would result in lower chlorine concentrations over time).

50. The cumulative reduction in chlorine resulting from simultaneous implementation of all or some of these available options was calculated. It appears that in order to reduce atmospheric chlorine to 1985 levels, it will be necessary to implement all or nearly all of the options discussed above.

51. The meeting warmly thanked Ms Claussen for the enlightening information contained in her presentation.

52. The meeting convened a legal working group on non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol chaired by Mr Patrick Szell, United Kingdom.

53. The legal working group discussed the possible ways of fulfilling the requirements of article 8 of the Protocol based on the proposals submitted by Finland and the United States and on the possibility of adjusting the adopted arbitration procedure to conciliation procedure.

54. Because of the complexity of the issues the working group was not in a position to conclude its work. It was, however, the feeling that the revised proposal by the US submitted to the group as a conference room paper was a good basis for further discussion. Furthermore, a conciliation procedure based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, could be prepared.

55. It was decided to convene an ad hoc working group of legal experts to discuss further the issues at a meeting in July and to report to the Secretariat by 1 November 1989.

56. It was noted that the sum of 45,000 US$ would be needed by the Parties within three months to finance this meeting.

G. Financial arrangements

57. The proposed budget for the Montreal Protocol contained in Annex I to document UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/4, Financial Implications and Arrangements, was introduced by the Executive Director. He drew attention to the fact that the budget was calculated for a period of two years, but should Parties wish the budget period to be altered to some other interval, then they could do so. He noted that several elements of the budget were common to both the Convention and the Protocol, and the costs of these would be apportioned between the budgets of the two treaties. An example of this was the costs associated with project personnel which would administer both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.

58. The calculation of costs of the other budget elements were explained, as was the apportionment of voluntary contributions among the states Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

59. After a discussion and suggestions of some adjustments to the budgetary items 1600 and 3300 on travel of staff and support to experts from developing countries, the budget as contained in Annex IV was adopted, at 1.58 million US$ for 1990/1991, together with the Terms of Reference (Annex II).

60. A formula of voluntary contributions based on the UN scale of assessments with less than 0.1 per cent contributions removed, was adopted. The EEC will contribute a fixed percentage of 2.5 (Annex III).

61. Since the conference documents on the item were received late, the delegation of German Democratic Republic declared that it was not in a position to take a final view on this item at the meeting. Its position on it would be submitted to the Secretariat as soon as possible.

62. On the basis of article 5, paragraphs 2 and 3 and articles 9 and 10 of the Montreal Protocol the meeting discussed the problem of funding. A sub-working group was created to develop modalities of the fund and reporting procedures. The meeting decided to establish an open-ended working group of the Parties to develop modalities for financial mechanisms as reflected in the decisions of this meeting.

H. Consideration and agreement on understanding of concrete meanings of various terms and definitions

(a) "Controlled substances in bulk".

63. The definition as contained in paragraph 50 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, was adopted.

(b) "Controlled substances produced".

64. The definition as contained in paragraph 51 to 53 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, was adopted, with the understanding that controlled substances used as chemical feedstocks in the manufacture of other chemicals should be excluded from the calculation "controlled substances produced" and would not have to be approved by Parties.

(c) "Exports and Imports of used controlled substances".

65. The clarification of this definition as contained in paragraph 72 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, was adopted as correct.

(d) "Basic domestic needs".

66. The definition as explained in the first part of paragraph 55 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, that it is, understood as not to allow production of products containing controlled substances to expand for the purpose of supplying other countries, was adopted.

67. One delegation stated that the definition adopted might create difficulties for Parties in complying with the article 2 para. 1 to 4 and the article 5, paragraph 1 and that therefore, the matter should be looked into by the group of legal experts established in paragraph 55 of this report.

(e) "Industrial rationalizations".

68. The definition as explained in paragraph 57 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, was adopted.

(f) "article 2, paragraph 6".

69. The clarification of this paragraph contained in UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, paragraphs 68 to 71, was accepted as correct.

(g) "Developing countries".

70. The list of States contained in para 63 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, report of the Executive Director, as corrected by the meeting and with the inclusions of Albania, China, Mongolia and Namibia, was adopted.

71. It was explained that the inclusion of Albania in the list of "developing countries" would serve the purposes of the Protocol only and should not be taken as a political definition, since Albania is not a member of any economic or political grouping.

(h) "Destruction".

72. The definition as contained in paragraph 65 of UNEP/OzL.Pro.1/2, Report of the Executive Director, was adopted.

73. Regarding the discussion on the definition of article 1, paragraph 5 which states that the production is equal to the amount of controlled substances produced "minus the amount destroyed by technologies to be approved by the Parties", it was suggested that the Panel for Technical Assessment should address this subject to enable the Parties to approve methods for transformation and decomposition by each method. This Panel should also review transformation and decomposition technologies and make recommendations to the Parties concerning approval.

74. It was also suggested that the amount of production credit should be equal to the net production in the calculated substances (as defined in article 3 of the Protocol) that is actually achieved by the transformation or decomposition.

75. It was decided that this issue will be considered at the next meetings of the Parties.

I. Review of Annex A to the Protocol

(i) Determination of the ozone depleting potential for halon 2402.

76. Agreement was reached to accept the value of the ODP for halon 2402 as 6.0. It was further agreed that the Depositary could insert this value in Annex A by interpreting the text as allowing such an insertion without the need for a formal amendment process.

(ii) Review of the latest information on ozone depleting potentials of CFCs and halons.

77. An extensive review of ODPs and GHPs of all controlled substances, their potential substitutes, and of other ozone depleting substances not currently controlled under the Protocol is being undertaken by the Panel for Scientific Assessment. Provisional conclusions are likely to be available by mid-May 1989.

78. Several delegates noted the importance of examining the environmental safety of all chemicals under review by the Panel. One delegate suggested that a scientific institute be charged with undertaking this investigation on behalf of the Parties.

79. It was also requested that methyl chloride be investigated by the Panel for Scientific Assessment. The chairman of this Panel agreed that this chemical should be considered under the review but noted that as methyl chloride was a naturally occurring substance rather than one of anthropogenic origin, the emissions of this substance probably could not be controlled.

80. The meeting took note of the report of the chairman of the Panel for Scientific Assessment and agreed that no action was necessary before the publication of the review of science and of the recommendations of the Panel. The meeting was informed that (a sub-group of the Panel for Scientific Assessment)* would address the specific issues covered by this agenda item at a workshop to be held in Boulder, USA, in early May 1989.

J. The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System

81. In order to facilitate the reporting of imports and exports of controlled substances, the meeting decided to adopt a proposal for a modification of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, as reflected in Annex VII.

K. Report and confidentiality of data

82. The meeting then decided on the reporting of data and on the question of confidentiality of data reported.

83. As a consequence of this decision the EEC representative indicated that it must reflect further upon this matter, both from the point of legal interpretation of the Protocol and corresponding provisions in EEC law. The EEC may need to return to this matter on a future occasion.

84. During the discussion on the reporting of data, a number of delegations and observers (USSR, Norway, Ukrainian SSR, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Greenpeace) referred to the need for the reporting of data (article 7 of the Protocol) in an open form that would ensure the fulfillment of the objectives of the Montreal Protocol. Any confidential form of reporting defends industrial interests rather than the task of protecting the ozone layer. Serious objections were raised to the adoption of the proposal submitted by the United States and the EEC.

* Title to be confirmed by the Chairman of the Panel for Scientific Assessment.

85. A number of representatives (Greenpeace, Zambia and WWF) referred to the need for free access for the entire world community to detailed information on the production, import and export of CFCs, halons, and other ozone depleting substances.


86. The First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer:

I. Invites all States who have not yet done so to become Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

II. Decides :

1. To adopt the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol as they appear in Annex I to this report.

2. To establish its Bureau to be composed of the President, three Vice-Presidents and Rapporteur elected by each meeting of the Parties.

The Bureau shall meet at least once between meetings of the Parties to review the work of any working groups established by the Parties during their meetings, to consider other topics on the Agenda of the next meeting of the Parties and to review the documents prepared by the Secretariat for meetings of the Parties to facilitate the work of these meetings.

3. To endorse the establishment, in accordance with article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, of the following four review panels:

(a) Panel for Scientific Assessment,

(b) Panel for Environmental Assessment,

(c) Panel for Technical Assessment,

(d) Panel for Economic Assessment,

according to the composition in Annex V and the Terms of Reference in Annex VI to this report.

4. To consider the following elements as the first components for the workplans required by articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol:

(a) Dissemination of the reports of the panels for scientific, environmental, technical, and economic assessments, as well as the synthesis report, and their follow-up;

(b) Regular updating of the panel reports, taking into account in particular the developments in the fields of production of environmentally sound substitutes or alternative technological solutions to the use of CFCs or halons;

(c) Development of a programme, which will include workshops, demonstration projects, training courses, the exchange of experts and the provision of consultants on control options, taking into account the special needs of developing countries, for the consideration by the Parties at their second meeting;

(d) Preparation of a study of retrofit technologies applicable to existing manufacturing facilities that produce controlled substances or products made with or containing such substances, to be presented to the Parties for their consideration at their second meeting;

(e) Facilitation of the production and wide dissemination of material for public information;

(f) Exploration of specific ways of promoting exchange and transfer of environmentally sound substitutes and alternative technologies;

(g) Initiatives to support activities in programmes of international organizations and financing agencies that could contribute towards implementing the provisions of the Protocol, and defining means by which the Secretariat can initiate concrete contacts with the appropriate international organizations, programmes and financing agencies for this purpose.

5. To establish an open-ended working group to:

(a) Review the report of the four panels referred in decision 3 above, and integrate them into one synthesis report;

(b) Based on (a) above, and taking into account the views expressed at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, prepare draft proposals for any amendments to the Protocol which would be needed. Such proposals are to be circulated to the Parties in accordance with article 9 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;

(c) To develop the workplans referred to in decision 4 above; and

(d) To work out the modalities required by decision 13.

6. To authorize the Secretariat to convene meetings of the working group referred to in paragraph 5 above.

7. To authorize the Secretariat to invite non-Parties to participate in the deliberations of the meetings of the working groups established by the Parties.

8. Non-Compliance:

(a) To establish an open-ended ad hoc working group of legal experts to develop and submit to the Secretariat by 1 November 1989 appropriate proposals for consideration and approval by the Parties at their Second Meeting on procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and for the treatment of Parties that fail to comply with its terms;

(b) To invite Parties and signatories to submit to the Secretariat by no later than 22 May 1989 any comments or proposals they wish to see reflected in the working documents of the ad hocworking group;

(c) To urge the Parties to provide within the next three months on a voluntary basis, the necessary funds for the ad hocworking group's meeting.

9. To accept the value for the Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) for halon 2402, as 6.0, and to request the Secretariat to inform the Depositary that the Parties agreed to accept this figure by consensus at their first meeting and that accordingly, the Depositary should insert this figure to replace the words "to be determined" in Annex A to the Montreal Protocol.

10. To request the Panel for Scientific Assessment to give full consideration to ODPs, greenhouse-warming potential and atmospheric life-time of the various atmospheric constituents whether controlled or not, and advise the Parties as to the environmental characteristics, both currently and in the light of projections of future production and emission, of all relevant atmospheric constituents. In this regard, particular attention should be paid to potential substitutes for the presently controlled substances, particularly HCFC 22. Similarly, the importance of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride in controlling the volume of atmospheric ozone should be quantified.

11. Report and confidentiality of data

(a) That each Party is required to report its annual production, imports and exports of each individual controlled substance;

(b) That Parties submitting data on controlled substances deemed to be confidential by that Party shall, in submitting the data to the Secretariat, require a guarantee that the data will be treated with professional secrecy and maintained confidential;

(c) That the Secretariat in preparing reports on data of controlled substances shall aggregate the data from several Parties in such a way as to ensure that data from Parties deemed to be confidential is not disclosed. The Secretariat shall also publish total data aggregated over all Parties for each individual controlled substance;

(d) That Parties wishing to exercise their rights under article 12, paragraph b of the Protocol may have access from the Secretariat to confidential data from other Parties, provided that they send an application in writing guaranteeing that such data will be treated with professional secrecy and not disclosed or published in any way.

(e) That data submitted under article 7 shall when necessary be made available on a confidential basis to resolve disputes under article 11 of the Convention.

12. Clarification of terms and definitions:

A. To agree to the following clarification of the definition of controlled substances (in bulk) in article 1 paragraph 4 of the Montreal Protocol:

(a) article 1 of the Montreal Protocol excludes from consideration as a "controlled substance" any listed substance, whether alone or in a mixture, which is in a manufactured product other than a container used for transportation or storage;

(b) Any amount of a controlled substance or a mixture of controlled substances which is not part of a use system containing the substance is a controlled substance for the purpose of the Protocol (i.e. a bulk chemical);

(c) If a substance or mixture must first be transferred from a bulk container to another container, vessel or piece of equipment in order to realize its intended use, the first container is in fact utilized only for storage and/or transport, and the substance or mixture so packaged is covered by article 1, paragraph 4 of the Protocol;

(d) If, on the other hand, the mere dispensing of the product from a container constitutes the intended use of the substance, then that container is itself part of a use system and the substance contained in it is therefore excluded from the definition;

(e) Examples of use systems to be considered as products for the purposes of article 1, paragraph 4 are inter alia:

(i) An aerosol can;

(ii) A refrigerator or refrigerating plant, air conditioner or air-conditioning plant, heat pump, etc.;

(iii) A polyurethane prepolymer or any foam containing, or manufactured with, a controlled substance;

(iv) A fire extinguisher (wheel or hand-operated) or an installed container incorporating a release device (automatic or hand-operated);

(f) Bulk containers for shipment of controlled substances and mixtures containing controlled substances to users include (numbers being illustrative), inter alia:

(i) Tanks installed on board ships;

(ii) Rail tank cars (10-40 metric tons);

(iii) Road tankers (up to 20 metric tons);

(iv) Cylinders from 0.4 kg to one metric ton;

(v) Drums (5-300 kg);

(g) Because containers of all sizes are used for either bulk or manufactured products, distinguishing on the basis of size is not consistent with the definition in the Protocol. Similarly, since containers for bulk or manufactured products can be designed to be rechargeable or not rechargeable, rechargeability is not sufficient for a consistent definition;

(h) If the purpose of the container is used as the distinguishing characteristic as in the Protocol definition, such CFC or halon-containing products as aerosol spray cans and fire extinguishers, whether of the portable or flooding type, would therefore be excluded, because it is the mere release from such containers which constitute the intended use.

B. (a) To agree to the following clarification on the definition of "controlled substances produced" article 1, paragraph 5:

"Controlled substances produced" as used in article 1, paragraph 5 is the calculated level of controlled substances manufactured by a Party. This excludes the calculated level of controlled substances entirely used as a feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. Excluded also from the term "controlled substances produced" is the calculated level of controlled substances derived from used controlled substances through recycling or recovery processes.

(b) Each Party should establish accounting procedures to implement this definition.

C. To agree to the following clarification of the term "basic domestic needs" in articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol:

"Basic domestic needs" referred to in articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol should be understood as not to allow production of products containing controlled substances to expand for the purpose of supplying other countries.

D. To agree to the following clarification of the definition of "industrial rationalization" in article 1, paragraph 8 and article, 2 paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Protocol:

"In interpreting the definition of industrial rationalization, it is not possible for one country to increase its production without a corresponding reduction of production in another country."

E. Clarification of the term "developing countries":

The following countries shall be considered developing countries for the purposes of the Protocol: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

F. Definition of "destruction"

(a) To agree to the following clarification of the definition of article 1, paragraph 5 of the Protocol:

"A destruction process is one which, when applied to controlled substances, results in the permanent transformation, or decomposition of all or a significant portion of such substances";

(b) To request the Panel for Technical Assessment to address this subject for the Parties to return to it at its second and subsequent meetings with a view to determining whether it would be necessary to have a Standing Technical Committee to review and recommend for approval by the Parties methods for transformation or decomposition and to determine the amount of controlled substances that are transformed or decomposed by each method.

G. To agree to the following clarification of article 2, paragraph 6 of the Protocol:

(a) Paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 2 of the Protocol freeze and then reduce annual production and therefore do not allow any increase of such production under article 2, paragraph 6.

(b) Since the object and purpose of the Protocol is to significantly reduce the production and use of CFCs and halons, neither article 2, paragraph 6 nor any other provision allows an increase in production to be exported to non-Parties so that the reduction in global consumption is not obtained in accordance with the object of the Protocol.

(c) Only countries that notify the Secretariat that the facilities were under construction or contracted prior to 16 September 1987, provided for in national legislation prior to 1 January 1987 and completed by 31 December 1990 were allowed to operate under article, 2 paragraph 6.

H. Exports and imports of used controlled substances

Imports and exports of bulk used controlled substances should be treated and recorded in the same manner as virgin controlled substances and included in the calculation of a Party's consumption limits.

13. Assistance to Developing Countries

(a) To recognize the urgent need to establish international financial and other mechanisms to implement article 5, paragraphs 2 and 3, in conjunction with articles 9 and 10 of the Montreal Protocol and to enable developing countries to meet the requirements of the present and a future strengthened Protocol, thereby addressing the ozone depletion and related problems.

(b) To establish an open-ended working group of the Contracting Parties to develop modalities for such mechanisms, including adequate international funding mechanisms which do not exclude the possibility of an international Fund and to report the results of their deliberations to the Conference of the Parties at its second meeting in 1990.

14. Financial Arrangements:

A. (a) To establish a United Nations Trust Fund in accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and in accordance with the General Procedures governing operations of the Fund of the United Nations Environment Programme;

(b) The Protocol Trust Fund shall be administered by the Executive Director of UNEP and shall finance expenditures approved by the Parties and shall receive the contributions of Parties to the Protocol;

(c) To that end the Meeting requests the Executive Director to secure the necessary consents of the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Governing Council of UNEP;

(d) To adopt the terms of reference of the Trust Fund in Annex II of this report;

(e) The contributions of the Parties shall be in the form of voluntary contributions according to the formula in Annex III of this report;

(f) The Meeting calls on all Parties to pay their contributions to the Trust Fund in advance of the period to which they relate;

(g) To approve a total budget of US$ 1,580,000 for the biennium 1990-1991, the details of the approved budget are presented in Annex IV.

B. The States non-Parties and the non-Contributing Parties to the Trust Fund are encouraged to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund.

15. Helsinki Declaration

To take note of the Helsinki Declaration on the Protection of the Ozone Layer adopted by all countries both Contracting and non-Contracting Parties present in Helsinki on the occasion of the first Meeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol as it appears in Appendix I to this Report.

L. Other Matters

87. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic made the following statement on the Helsinki Declaration:

"The German Democratic Republic shall endeavour to fully comply with the obligations under the Montreal Protocol. It declares its readiness to participate in revising the Montreal Protocol. However, it is of the opinion that a 85 per cent reduction by 1998 and a complete phase-out of the use of such substances by the year 2000 can only be agreed if the following conditions are met:

- Development of scientific-technical and economically feasible solutions with equal participation of the Socialist countries;

- Unrestricted access of all countries to these solutions;

- A comprehensive verification of the substitutes with regard to their impact on the environment so as to exclude other dangers for human health and the environment; and unrestricted exchange of these testing results".

88. The Head of the Delegation of Finland made the following statement: "On the initiative of the Government of Finland, which led to the adoption by all the more than 80 Governments, both Contracting and non-Contracting Parties present here in Helsinki on the occasion of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, of a Declaration on the subject of the Protocol. The Declaration, while not a part of the Protocol or a decision by this Conference, and therefore not legally binding, is nevertheless a strong statement of political intent adopted without dissent, to send out a clear signal to the world at large. We all agree with the main sentiments reflected in the declaration, namely:

(a) The invitation to all States to join the Protocol;

(b) The agreement to phase out the production and consumption of CFCs and other currently known and potential ozone depleting substances;

(c) The agreement to facilitate the access of developing countries to relevant scientific information, research results and training, and to seek to develop appropriate funding mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of technology.

The Conference may wish to take note of the Declaration which could be attached to the Report of the Meeting as an Appendix".

89. The meeting decided to take note of the Helsinki Declaration of 2 May 1989 and to attach it to this report as Appendix I.

90. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure the Bureau examined the credentials. The President of the Bureau introduced the report on the credentials, which were found to be in order.

91. The Meeting adopted this report.


92. After brief statements by the President Kaj Ba'rlund and the Executive Director Dr. M.K. Tolba the meeting was closed at 7.00 p.m. on Friday 5 May 1989.